DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed December 29, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-23 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Rimminen et al. (US 20160157780 A1) (hereinafter – Rimminen) in view of
Smits (US 20220346656 A1) (hereinafter – Smits) in view of
Omori et al. (WO 2018230449 A1) (hereinafter – Omori) (citing USPTO SEARCH machine translation).
Re. Claim 1: Rimminen teaches a system for monitoring vital signs of a patient (Abstract; Paragraph 0016: “In other embodiments of the invention, the sensor device can communicate one or more sleeping parameter to the mobile third party client application including the user presence on the bed, time, sound levels of snoring, ballistocardio-graphic data, respiration rate, heart rate, skeletal muscle movement of the user while sleeping etc.;” similarly recited in Paragraphs 0058, 0059, 0115),
the system comprising:
a platform having a top surface upon which a patient may rest and a bottom surface (Fig. 1: bed 110);
a vibration sensor coupled to the platform such that vibrations caused by the resting patient are coupled to the vibration sensor, wherein the vibration sensor is configured to provide vibration signals based on the vibrations caused by the resting patient (Paragraph 0058: “The strain gauge 210 is used to detect the state of physical motion of the user 220 on the bed, by detecting the static deflection of the sensor caused by the presence of the person. The strain gauge 210 integrated into the piezo sensors may measure the vibration signals occurring due to the respiration and/or other body movements of the user 220”);
a set of load cells coupled to the bottom surface and configured to provide strain signals (Paragraph 0033: particularly, “…the best mode of the invention is believed to be represented by an embodiment in which one or more thin film piezo sensors are integrated with a plethora of different types of static sensors, namely the strain gauge sensor and the capacitive load cell sensor and the capacitive proximity sensor and the thermocouple and the inductive proximity sensor”).
Rimminen discloses generally that sleep parameters including heart rate of the at least one user can be measured using at least one sensor (e.g., piezo thin film sensor, strain gauge, capacitive proximity sensor, thermocouple, inductive proximity sensor, capacitive load cell sensor) (Paragraph 0052). Thus, Rimminen teaches at least one processor configured to process the vibration signals and the strain signals and to derive at least one vital sign parameter of the patient based on the processed vibration signals and the processed strain signals including at least one of a patient heart performance parameter or a patient respiration performance parameter. However, Rimminen does not teach the invention comprising determining at least one of a patient heart performance parameter based on the processed vibration signals and the processed strain signals or a patient respiration performance parameter based on the processed vibration signals and the processed strain signals
Smits teaches analogous art in the technology of monitoring heart and breathing parameters of a subject (Abstract; Paragraph 0016) lying on a platform (Fig. 1A). Smits further teaches the invention comprising determining at least one of a patient heart performance parameter based on the processed vibration signals and the processed strain signals or a patient respiration performance parameter based on the processed vibration signals and the processed strain signals (Abstract: “A controller (30) is configured to determine a heart rate (H1) of the subject (200) based on a combination of the measured resistance values (R) of the force-sensitive 15 resistors (10) and the time-dependent electrical signals (S) of the piezoelectric transducers (20).” Paragraph 0016: “In some embodiments, piezo sensors having a high likeliness not to be in contact with the body are used for noise cancellations, e.g. to remove unrelated (e.g. parasitic) vibrations. In other or further embodiments, sensors which are located on parts of the body where no BCG signal should be present are used to remove other vibrations, e.g. related to breathing and not heart rate, or vice versa (in case the breathing rate is measured). In some embodiments, the breathing rate of a subject is extracted simultaneously from the pressure sensor signal and the piezo sensors providing a redundancy on the obtained signal”).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Rimminen to further use data from a variety of sensors akin to vibration sensors and load cells taught in Rimminen as taught by Smits to provide a detection of heart rate as taught by Smits, the motivation being that data from one sensor may be used to remove unrelated measurements from another sensor type, further validating the detection of heart rate measurement (Paragraph 0016). Smits also discloses identifying breathing signals by removing unrelated signals detected as heart rate (Paragraph 0016), further validating the detection of a respiration parameter.
Rimminen as modified by Smits does not teach the invention wherein each load cell is isolated from environmental vibrations in a manner that eliminates or dampens environmental vibrations that otherwise might be conducted by the vibration sensor.
Omori teaches analogous art in the technology of load detectors (Abstract). Omori further teaches wherein each load cell is isolated from environmental vibrations in a manner that eliminates or dampens environmental vibrations that otherwise might be conducted by the vibration sensor (Abstract: “…(41, 42) which are provided to the underside of the base parts and which have elasticity…”).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Rimminen as modified by Smits to utilize the damped load cells and associated locations thereof of Omori, the motivation being that doing so reduces the influence of environmental vibrations for the sleeping platform (Page 8: “Also, the floor on which the load detectors 100a to 100d are installed is not necessarily completely stationary. For example, it slightly vibrates due to the influence of a person walking on the floor or a device (for example, a refrigerator, a fan, etc.) installed on the floor that generates minute vibrations. Further, the floor surface may vibrate as the entire building including the floor surface vibrates due to strong winds or traffic of large vehicles. In the load detectors 100a to 100d of this embodiment, the damper members 41 and 42 can reduce the influence of such minute vibrations on the floor surface onload detection”).
Re. Claim 3: Rimminen as modified by Smits and Omori teaches the invention according to claim 1. Rimminen further teaches the invention wherein the vibration sensor comprises a piezoelectric element (Paragraph 0033: “… the best mode of the invention is believed to be represented by an embodiment in which one or more thin film piezo sensors are integrated with a plethora of different types of static sensors, namely the strain gauge sensor and the capacitive load cell sensor and the capacitive proximity sensor and the thermocouple and the inductive proximity sensor”).
Re. Claim 4: Rimminen as modified by Smits and Omori teaches the invention according to claim 1. Omori, in teaching further details regarding the incorporated isolated load cells, further teaches the invention wherein the set of load cells is isolated from environmental vibrations by a set of isolation pads underlying the load cells (Abstract: “…(41, 42) which are provided to the underside of the base parts and which have elasticity…;” Fig. 3).
Re. Claim 5: Rimminen as modified by Smits and Omori teaches the invention according to claim 4. Omori, in teaching further details regarding the incorporated isolated load cells, further teaches the invention wherein the set of isolation pads is formed of elastic material (Abstract: “…(41, 42) which are provided to the underside of the base parts and which have elasticity…”).
Re. Claim 6: Rimminen as modified by Smits and Omori teaches the invention according to claim 1. Omori, in teaching further details regarding the incorporated isolated load cells, further teaches the invention wherein the set of loads cells is configured such that there is a load cell in every load path carrying the weight of the resting patient (Figs. 2, 3, 6).
Re. Claim 7: Rimminen as modified by Smits and Omori teaches the invention according to claim 1. Omori, in teaching further details regarding the incorporated isolated load cells, further teaches the invention wherein the set of load cells comprises a plurality of load cells (Figs. 2, 3, 6).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Rimminen et al. (US 20160157780 A1) (hereinafter – Rimminen) in view of
Smits (US 20220346656 A1) (hereinafter – Smits) in view of
Omori et al. (WO 2018230449 A1) (hereinafter – Omori) (citing USPTO SEARCH machine translation) in further view of
Inan et al. (US 20150073234 A1) (hereinafter – Inan).
Re. Claim 2: Rimminen as modified by Smits and Omori teaches the invention according to claim 1, but does not teach the invention wherein the vibration sensor comprises a geophone.
Inan teaches analogous art in the technology of load sensors (Abstract). Inan further teaches the invention wherein the vibration sensor comprises a geophone
(Paragraph 0008: “A force sensor is arranged to capture a signal indicative of the physical movement and/or mechanical output of the heart of the user while the user is standing on the device. A second specific sensor type (e.g., … geophone…) provides additional information about the captured signal, which may be indicative of noise… or of other characteristics of the user. A processor uses the second-sensor signal to process the captured signal, such as to filter or gate (e.g., weight or eliminate aspects of) a captured BCG recording, and provide user diagnostics”).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Rimminen as modified by Smits and Omori to have the vibration sensor comprise a geophone as taught by Inan, the motivation being that such a sensor type can provide additional information to filter or gate another captured signal (e.g., ballistocardiography being one of the determined sleep parameters of Rimminen) (Inan, Paragraph 0008).
Claims 8-10, 17, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Rimminen et al. (US 20160157780 A1) (hereinafter – Rimminen) in view of
Smits (US 20220346656 A1) (hereinafter – Smits) in view of
Omori et al. (WO 2018230449 A1) (hereinafter – Omori) (citing USPTO SEARCH machine translation) in further view of
Op Den Buijs et al. (US 20140358017 A1) (hereinafter – ODB).
Re. Claim 8: Rimminen as modified by Omori teaches the invention according to claim 1, but does not teach the invention wherein the at least one processor comprises:
analog conditioning circuitry configured to amplify and filter the vibration signals and the strain signals; and
digital conversion circuitry configured to digitize the amplified and filtered vibration and strain signals.
ODB teaches analogous art in the technology of monitoring cardiorespiratory parameters of a user in a bed (Abstract). ODB further teaches a device wherein the at least one processor comprises:
analog conditioning circuitry configured to amplify and filter the vibration signals and the strain signals (Paragraph 0056: “In these algorithms, the detection of the heart rate from the signal from the mechanical sensor(s) 6 (whether a strain gauge, piezo-electric sensor, pressure sensor, load cell, etc.) involves amplifying, low-pass filtering and sampling of the analogue sensor signal. The digital signal is then filtered using a low-pass or band-pass filter. For example, a band-pass filter can be designed such that the target heart rate is constrained within 35 to 180 beats per minute”); and
digital conversion circuitry configured to digitize the amplified and filtered vibration and strain signals (see previous citation, particularly “The digital signal is then filtered using a low-pass or band-pass filter;” Examiner notes that this implies the conversion of initial analog signals to digital signals for processing, a common step in signal processing arts).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Rimminen as modified by Smits and Omori to include filtering, amplification, and conversion circuits as taught by ODB to process sensor signals, the motivation being that doing so isolates portions of the signal of interest, such as heart rate or heart peaks (Paragraph 0056).
Re. Claim 9: Rimminen as modified by Smits, Omori, and ODB teaches the invention according to claim 8. ODB, in teaching further detail regarding the incorporated processing and circuitry, further teaches invention wherein the analog conditioning circuitry is configured to filter the vibration signals to isolate frequencies of interest (see rejection of claim 8).
Re. Claim 10: Rimminen as modified by Smits, Omori, and ODB teaches the invention according to claim 9. ODB, in teaching further detail regarding the incorporated processing and circuitry, further teaches wherein the analog conditioning circuit includes at least one of
a high-pass filter,
a low-pass filter, or
a bandpass filter configured to filter the vibration signals
(Paragraph 0056: “The digital signal is then filtered using a low-pass or band-pass filter”).
Re. Claim 17: Rimminen as modified by Smits, Omori, and ODB teaches the invention according to claim 8. ODB, in teaching further detail regarding the incorporated processing and circuitry, further teaches wherein the digital conversion circuitry comprises at least one analog-to-digital converter (see citations of claim 8, particularly “The digital signal is then filtered using a low-pass or band-pass filter;” Examiner notes that this implies the conversion of initial analog signals to digital signals for processing, a common step in signal processing arts).
Re. Claim 20: Rimminen as modified by Smits, Omori, and ODB teaches the invention according to claim 1. ODB, in teaching further detail regarding the incorporated processing and circuitry, further teaches wherein the at least one processor further comprises:
vital sign monitoring circuitry configured to derive the at least one vital sign parameter from the digitized vibration and strain signals (see rejection of claim 8; implicit in the combination of Rimminen as modified by Omori and ODB).
Re. Claim 21: Rimminen as modified by Smits, Omori, and ODB teaches the invention according to claim 20. Rimminen further teaches the invention wherein the vital sign monitoring system is configured to
identify samples of digitized vibration and strain signals relating to the at least one vital sign parameter (Paragraph 0052: sleep parameters include “sound level of snoring, ballistocardio-graphic data, respiration rate, heart rate;” see combination with ODB regarding digital processing of signals) and
derive the at least one vital sign parameter from the identified samples (see above and citation of rejection of claim 20).
Re. Claim 22: Rimminen as modified by Smits, Omori, and ODB teaches the invention according to claim 20. Rimminen further teaches the invention wherein:
the platform, the vibration sensor, the set of load cells, the analog conditioning circuitry, the digital conversion circuitry, and the vital sign monitoring circuitry are integrated in a single device (implicit in the combination of Rimminen as modified by Omori and ODB- none of the incorporated components are utilized as a separate device).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Rimminen et al. (US 20160157780 A1) (hereinafter – Rimminen) in view of
Smits (US 20220346656 A1) (hereinafter – Smits) in view of
Omori et al. (WO 2018230449 A1) (hereinafter – Omori) (citing USPTO SEARCH machine translation) in further view of
Op Den Buijs et al. (US 20140358017 A1) (hereinafter – ODB) in further view of
Smith et al. (WO 9819596 A1) (hereinafter – Smith).
Re. Claim 11: Rimminen as modified by Smits, Omori, and ODB teaches the invention according to claim 9, but does not teach the invention wherein the analog conditioning circuit includes at least one of:
a Sallen-Key topology fourth-order Chebyshev high-pass filter having a 3 dB point of 10Hz or lower;
a Sallen-Key topology fourth-order Chebyshev high-pass filter having a 3 dB point of no less than 20Hz; or
a bandpass filter with a bandwidth of at least 10Hz centered at 15Hz.
Particularly, ODB is not specific regarding the incorporated filtering steps.
Smith teaches analogous art in the technology of monitoring physiological parameters of a subject on a sleeping surface (Page 1, lines 1-9: “The present invention relates to a system and method for monitoring the heartbeat of a living being without having to be fitted to the living being, in particular when the living being is a baby. Systems have been developed for home and hospital use to monitor the presence of a baby in a cot or a pram”). Smith teaches the use of a piezo-ceramic device to detect movement (Figs. 4a-4d), whose signals are processed via a microprocessor. Smith further teaches the invention wherein the analog conditioning circuit includes at least one of:
a Sallen-Key topology fourth-order Chebyshev high-pass filter having a 3 dB point of 10Hz or lower;
a Sallen-Key topology fourth-order Chebyshev low-pass filter having a 3 dB point of no less than 20Hz; or
a bandpass filter with a bandwidth of at least 10Hz centered at 15Hz
(Page 4, lines 12-15: “In order to generate a sinusoidal oscillation having a half cycle which approximates to the heartbeat signal the oscillator element is preferably responsive to and the filter preferably passes frequencies in the range of 6.8Hz to 20Hz. The selected range of frequencies are preferably centred on a frequency of between 10 and 15Hz, preferably 12.5Hz”).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the bandpass filter of Rimminen as modified by Smits, Omori, and ODB to include a bandwidth of and centering frequency as taught by Smith, the motivation being that such parameters for a band-pass filter aids in detection of heartbeat signals over other physical activities of the subject (Page 11, lines 7-18).
Examiner notes that amendment of the claims to incorporate other components of the “or” clause recited above (e.g., Sallen-Key topology fourth-order Chebyshev high-pass filters of various configurations) without recitation of criticality or unexpected results discussed Applicant’s Specification regarding the particulars of such configurations (e.g., 3 dB points at certain frequencies) will likely result in a rejection based on optimization of a result-effective variable or optimization of ranges or an alternative rationale regarding obviousness. For instance, Sallen-Key is a known circuit configuration for active filters, whereby Sallen-Key topology can implement a Chebyshev filter by designing a second-order active filter with appropriate coefficients to produce the filter’s desired response. Forming higher-order Chebyshev filters results from merely cascading second-order Sallen-Key sections with specific Q-factors to achieve desired filter response. Applicant’s specification lacks reasoning for utilizing such particular filter terminology aside from exemplary recitation of a particular component that is known to be utilized as a filter (Page 2).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Rimminen et al. (US 20160157780 A1) (hereinafter – Rimminen) in view of
Smits (US 20220346656 A1) (hereinafter – Smits) in view of
Omori et al. (WO 2018230449 A1) (hereinafter – Omori) (citing USPTO SEARCH machine translation) in further view of
Op Den Buijs et al. (US 20140358017 A1) (hereinafter – ODB) in further view of
Ogino et al. (US 20060155175 A1) (hereinafter – Ogino).
Re. Claim 12: Rimminen as modified by Smits, Omori, and ODB teaches the invention according to claim 9, but does not teach the invention wherein the analog conditioning circuitry is configured to amplify the filtered vibration signals by a factor of at least 200.
Ogino teaches analogous art in the technology of platforms having piezoelectric sensors used to detect biological information (paragraph 0036: “Furthermore, the invention provides the biological sensor, wherein the acceleration detecting means is a piezoelectric cable sensor laid on a seat portion”). Ogino further teaches the invention wherein the analog conditioning circuitry is configured to amplify the filtered vibration signals by a factor of at least 200 (Paragraph 0129: “The first amplifier 390 serves to amplify the output of the piezoelectric cable sensor at approximately 100 times, and the second amplifier 391 serves to amplify the output of the first amplifier 390 at approximately 10 to 100 times”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to include the gain value as taught by Ogino in the system of Rimminen as modified by Smits, Omori, and ODB, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements (Rimminen as modified by Smits, Omori, and ODB teaching an invention amplifying cardiovascular signals; Ogino teaching an amplification factor used in amplifying cardiovascular signals), and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Further, Examiner notes that while Applicant generally discloses a suitable amplification value, the disclosure does not detail any criticality or unexpected results through use of these frequencies. As such, without a showing of criticality or unexpected results it would have been within the skill level of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine optimized values for amplifying vibration signals, since it has generally been held to be within the skill level of the art to perform routine experimentation to determine optimal operation parameters.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Rimminen et al. (US 20160157780 A1) (hereinafter – Rimminen) in view of
Smits (US 20220346656 A1) (hereinafter – Smits) in view of
Omori et al. (WO 2018230449 A1) (hereinafter – Omori) (citing USPTO SEARCH machine translation) in further view of
Op Den Buijs et al. (US 20140358017 A1) (hereinafter – ODB) in further view of
Borkholder (US 20220364904 A1) (hereinafter – Borkholder).
Re. Claim 13: Rimminen as modified by Smits, Omori, and ODB teaches the invention according to claim 8, including amplification and filtering of signals (see rejection of claim 8). Rimminen as modified by Omori and ODB are silent regarding the analog conditioning circuitry being configured to sum strain signals from the set of load cells. Particularly, Rimminen teaches the use of capacitive load cell sensors, and does not teach strain signals being summed.
Borkholder teaches analogous art in the technology of physiological monitoring devices embedded in platforms (Abstract; Fig. 1). Borkholder further teaches the invention wherein the analog conditioning circuitry is configured to
sum the strain signals from the set of load cells (Paragraph 0042, 0074: “In some embodiments, a set of sensor(s)… can be coupled to one another, e.g., via a Wheatstone bridge, and provide an output that is representative of the combined signals measured by that set of sensor(s…”).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Rimminen as modified by Smits, Omori, and ODB to have utilized a Wheatstone bridge to provide an output representative of combined signals measured by sets of sensors as taught by Borkholder, the motivation being that doing so that the combined signal can be more representative of weight forces of the subject, which can be used to estimate relevant information for medical analysis of cardiac and vascular function (Paragraph 0075).
Re. Claim 14: Rimminen as modified by Smits, Omori, ODB, and Borkholder teaches the invention according to claim 13, but are silent regarding the details of the Wheatstone bridge used to combine sensor signals from a variety of load sensors.
A Wheatstone bridge is a known circuit which allows for comparison of signals of four elements in the arms of bridge. Since Rimminen utilizes capacitive load cells, the skilled artisan would recognize that the Wheatstone bridge incorporated by Borkholder to sum signals of sets of sensors would result in a capacitive Wheatstone bridge, with capacitive load cells in the arms of the bridge.
It would have been obvious to modify Rimminen as modified by Smits, Omori, ODB, and Borkholder to utilize a different type of load cell, such as resistive load cells as also taught by Borkholder (Paragraph 0084), with such a modification being a simple substitution of known elements used to perform an identical task (i.e., sense load). When resistive load cells are utilized in the invention of Rimminen as modified by Omori, ODB, and Borkholder, the skilled artisan would recognize that the Wheatstone bridge used to combine signals from the resistive load cells would then be a resistive Wheatstone bridge.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Rimminen et al. (US 20160157780 A1) (hereinafter – Rimminen) in view of
Smits (US 20220346656 A1) (hereinafter – Smits) in view of
Omori et al. (WO 2018230449 A1) (hereinafter – Omori) (citing USPTO SEARCH machine translation) in further view of
Op Den Buijs et al. (US 20140358017 A1) (hereinafter – ODB) in further view of
Borkholder (US 20220364904 A1) (hereinafter – Borkholder)
Applicant-Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter – AAPA).
Re. Claim 15: Rimminen as modified by Smits, Omori, ODB, and Borkholder teaches the invention according to claim 13, but does not teach the invention wherein the analog conditioning circuitry includes at least one of:
a three op-amp instrumentation amplifier circuit for amplifying the summed strain signals; or
a low-pass filter using an RC circuit with a characteristic frequency of approximately 1Hz for filtering the summed and amplified strain signals.
Applicant describes that “amplification might be accomplished using a classic three op-amp instrumentation amplifier circuit” (Specification, Page 6). The use of the term “classic” to describe a three op-amp instrumentation amplifier circuit, as well as a lack of any figures or written support regarding the construction of such a circuit is an indication that such a circuit and its use for amplification of signals is well-apprised by the skilled artisan. Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes such an additional element in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3).
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the “classic” amplifier circuit of AAPA for the undisclosed amplification circuitry of Rimminen as modified by Smits, Omori, ODB, and Borkholder. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e., amplifier circuits) producing a predictable result (a device which amplifies sensor signals) renders the claim obvious.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Rimminen et al. (US 20160157780 A1) (hereinafter – Rimminen) in view of
Smits (US 20220346656 A1) (hereinafter – Smits) in view of
Omori et al. (WO 2018230449 A1) (hereinafter – Omori) (citing USPTO SEARCH machine translation) in further view of
Op Den Buijs et al. (US 20140358017 A1) (hereinafter – ODB) in further view of
Borkholder (US 20220364904 A1) (hereinafter – Borkholder)
Gaurav et al. (US 20250031981 A1) (hereinafter – Gaurav).
Re. Claim 16: Rimminen as modified by Smits, Omori, ODB, and Borkholder teaches the invention according to claim 13, but does not teach the invention wherein the analog conditioning circuitry is configured to amplify the summed strain signals by a factor of at least 1000.
Gaurav teaches analogous art in the technology of cardiac signal determination from a sensor unit mounted to a bed (Abstract; Fig. 1). Gaurav further teaches the invention wherein the analog conditioning circuitry is configured to amplify the summed strain signals by a factor of at least 1000 (Paragraph 0030: “In an embodiment of the present method, the recorded cardiac micro-vibrations are converted to micro-voltage digital signals that are stored in chronological order. The micro-voltage signals are amplified and then denoised by the computation module. In one embodiment of the present method, the recorded micro-voltage digital signals are amplified up to 2500 times, preferably between 15 to 2500 times”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to include the gain value as taught by Gaurav in the system of Rimminen as modified by Smits, Omori and ODB, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements (Rimminen as modified by Omori and ODB teaching an invention amplifying bed sensor signals for cardiovascular analysis; Gaurav teaching an amplification factor used in amplifying bed sensor signals for cardiovascular analysis), and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Further, Examiner notes that while Applicant generally discloses a suitable amplification value, the disclosure does not detail any criticality or unexpected results through use of these frequencies. As such, without a showing of criticality or unexpected results it would have been within the skill level of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine optimized values for amplifying strain signals, since it has generally been held to be within the skill level of the art to perform routine experimentation to determine optimal operation parameters.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Rimminen et al. (US 20160157780 A1) (hereinafter – Rimminen) in view of
Smits (US 20220346656 A1) (hereinafter – Smits) in view of
Omori et al. (WO 2018230449 A1) (hereinafter – Omori) (citing USPTO SEARCH machine translation) in further view of
Op Den Buijs et al. (US 20140358017 A1) (hereinafter – ODB) in further view of
Jiao et al. (US 20210386378 A1) (hereinafter – Jiao).
Re. Claim 18: Rimminen as modified by Smits, Omori, and ODB teaches the invention according to claim 17, but does not teach the invention wherein the digital conversion circuitry is configured to sample the amplified and filtered vibration signals at a frequency of greater than 100Hz.
Jiao teaches analogous art in the technology of sensing mattresses (Abstract; Title). Jiao teaches a sensing mattress having a plurality of sensor units (Figs. 1-6) capable of discerning body motion, breath, and heartbeat signals (Paragraph 0043). Jiao further teaches the invention wherein the digital conversion circuitry is configured to sample the amplified and filtered vibration signals at a frequency of greater than 100Hz (Paragraph 0043: “When the sampling frequency of the signal acquisition circuit is not less than 100 Hz, it not only can acquire body motion signals, breath signals and heartbeat signals, but also can recognize abnormal heartbeat”).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the Rimminen as modified by Smits, Omori, and ODB to utilize a sampling frequency of greater than 100 Hz for vibration signals as taught by Jiao, the motivation being that doing so enables the device to identify abnormalities within heartbeat signals (Paragraph 0043).
Re. Claim 19: Rimminen as modified by Smits, Omori, and ODB teaches the invention according to claim 17, but does not teach the invention wherein the digital conversion circuitry is configured to sample the amplified and filtered strain signals at a frequency of greater than 2Hz.
Jiao teaches that a range of different sampling frequencies may be used for different sensor units, and includes a controllable range of sampling frequencies between 0.1 Hz to 10 kHz (Paragraph 0044). Examiner notes that while Applicant generally discloses a suitable sampling value (greater than 2 Hz), the disclosure does not detail any criticality or unexpected results through use of these frequencies. As such, without a showing of criticality or unexpected results it would have been within the skill level of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine optimized values for sampling amplified strain signals in the invention of Rimminen as modified by Omori and ODB, since it has generally been held to be within the skill level of the art to perform routine experimentation to determine optimal operation parameters.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Rimminen et al. (US 20160157780 A1) (hereinafter – Rimminen) in view of
Smits (US 20220346656 A1) (hereinafter – Smits) in view of
Omori et al. (WO 2018230449 A1) (hereinafter – Omori) (citing USPTO SEARCH machine translation) in further view of
Op Den Buijs et al. (US 20140358017 A1) (hereinafter – ODB) in further view of
Young et al. (US 20080077020 A1) (hereinafter – Young).
Re. Claim 23: Rimminen as modified by Smits, Omori, and ODB teaches the invention according to claim 20. Rimminen further teaches the invention wherein:
the platform, the vibration sensor, the set of load cells, the analog conditioning circuitry, and the digital conversion circuitry are integrated into a first device (see rejection of claim 22).
Rimminen as modified by Omori and ODB does not teach the vital sign monitoring circuitry is remote from the first device and receives the digitized vibration and strain signals from the first device via a communication system.
Young teaches analogous art in the technology of monitoring parameters of a user on a sleep surface (Abstract). Young further teaches the invention wherein the vital sign monitoring circuitry is remote from the first device and receives the digitized vibration and strain signals from the first device via a communication system (Paragraph 0072: FIG. 10 is a schematic showing how a wireless transceiver receiving data from a mattress sensor communicates with a remote microcontroller for monitoring and responding to health status data; Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Rimminen as modified by Smits, Omori and ODB to include utilizing remote monitoring as taught by Young, the motivation being that doing so enables another person to observe signals of the subject (Paragraph 0076).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed December 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument:
“[E]ven though Rimminen arguably includes both a vibration sensor and load sensors, the sensors are used independently for two different purposes, i.e., the vibration sensor is used to derive heart and/or respiration signals while the load sensors are used to determine presence/ingress or absence/egress of one or more users. Rimminen does not measure heart or respiration signals based on the strain/load signals as in the claims. For this reason, Rimminen does not need its load sensors to be isolated from environmental vibrations as in the claims. Thus, there would be no reason to add isolation from Omori to Rimminen, but even if such isolation was added to Rimminen, Rimminen still does not utilize the load signals for measuring heart or respiration signals.”
Examiner has presented the art of Smits to expedite prosecution. However, Examiner also notes that Rimminen, in using load sensors to determine whether a user is on the platform, performs processing of heart and/or respiration signals dependent upon whether the user is detected; thus, the heart and/or respiration signals processed are processed in light of load sensor signals determining presence of the user. Regardless, Smits is presented to better capture Applicant’s invention as described in page 7 of the Specification (i.e., processing of simultaneously gathered data from differing sensors to obtain heart-rate information).
Additionally, the isolation of load sensors from the environment as taught by Omori would still be useful in the invention of Rimminen since they are utilized to remove unwanted vibrations which may 1) unintentionally trigger detection of a presence/absence of a patient in the device of Rimminen and/or 2) disturb force/vibration measurements while the user is in the device of Rimminen. Examiner further notes that isolation is even more important when considering the modification of Smits utilizing force and vibration sensors in conjunction to process heart and respiratory parameters.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN XU whose telephone number is (571)272-6617. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUSTIN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791